A neat bug

[Modo44]

Originally posted by alexman
In order to get 5 colosseums give 50 gpt by 1000 AD, you would have to have them all complete by 1250 BC.

Uh, that is early, my bad. How much would they make, if built around 500 BC?

Originally posted by alexman
OK then, what would you rather have by 1000 BC as a militaristic civ? 5 Colosseums or 10 extra Swordsmen? At the very least, it's an interesting choice.

Yes it is. However, many players will have 10 Warriors and 4 Colosseums, right? I'm talking about a deliberate aim for this, of course. That's something that simply hasn't been explored.

Originally posted by alexman
And since when is Smith's dangerous? It's a nice Wonder, but not dangerous. With the changes to Armies, Militaristic civs might need such a boost in the AU mod. And it's not really free, you still have sacrifice something significant to build those early Colosseums.

Same goes for Smith's - building a wonder is a lot of shields that could go into units. The point is, every Militaristic civ could get it, so it would be something like a cash-giving Small Wonder, considering the overall effect. Hey, now that I said that, I'm starting to actually like the idea...

[sabrewolf]

i like moon's proposal, but i think main focus is being missed in the current discussion.

imho, it does not matter whether colosseums cover their own maintenance costs over time or not. as alex calculated, break even is at 1050AD if you build a colosseum early in the game. by then you're usually calculating in hundreds. and if you think about it: abandonning a londbow or medinf (let's say, when cavalry/riflemen come along) saves you 1gpt for a far longer period of time.

the emphasis should imho be on: "does the colosseum/militaristic trait need more improvement, and if so, how much?" and less "if i build the colosseum, when will i start getting cash from it?"

[punkbass2000]

I still think halfprice is too cheap for Colloseums. It should be 80 or 90, especially if we're going to grant them this tourist thing. Yes, you won't break even for a long time if you're just comparing maintenance to gpt, but you're still getting a potentially wise investment in content citizens, an advantage which is immeasurable. This is far greater than the Religious advantage, IMO, with the tourism bonus, and on top of the other Mil. traits. Yes, I know, I and others often malign Militaristic (and for good reason), but this really jumps out as a whole new type of advantage for Militaristic. It would really devalue Religious too, which is no longer a particularly strong trait, IMO, and I have seen many pro-Japan arguments centered around its ability to warmonger yet maintain high culture/happiness as well as culture in recent conquests. This change would give that ability to all Mil. civs. Beyond that, increasing the cheap colosseums to 80 or 90 shields would probably increase the number of turns a city that would be likely to be building this by anywhere from 2-8, making the tourism slightly less impactful and also make the decision further strategic.

[Moonbars]

[SIZE=1] the emphasis should imho be on: "does the colosseum/militaristic trait need more improvement, and if so, how much?" and less "if i build the colosseum, when will i start getting cash from it?"

It does. the AU Armies nerf the Mil. trait.

[lockstep]

I'm torn here ... On the one hand, the change would open up interesting choices, and also boost the Militaristic trait. On the other hand, I regard the change as rather big, even given its positive effects.

The 'tourist flag' for wonders (introduced in Conquests) simply gives a motivation not to raze cities that contain old, obsolete wonders. This was a logical addition to Civ3's gameplay, but I'm not sure if we should use this flag to boost a 'weak' improvement.

[alexman]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
...I have seen many pro-Japan arguments centered around its ability to warmonger yet maintain high culture/happiness as well as culture in recent conquests. This change would give that ability to all Mil. civs.

That's a good thought, but it's not quite true, because a full-price Temple gives as much culture as a half-price Colosseum, and they cost the same. So the only difference is the extra content person, but you pay for him by double maintenance cost. So Colosseums don't add value to militaristic civs for border expansions in recent conquests.

The happiness/culture effect is not nearly as good as it is for religious civs for core cities either: Religious civs get a 110-shield discount to make 4 people content and to produce 5 culture. Militaristic civs get a 60-shield discount to make just 2 people content and produce just 2 culture.

[punkbass2000]

Yes, but this isn't Mil's specialty in any way. Religious is good at that specific thing, while Mil has other advantages. Between harbours, barracks and (in theory) a colosseum Mil also receives 110-shields of discount with arguably better buildings. Many people still currently question whether Cathedrals or even Temples are worth building.

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
Yes, but this isn't Mil's specialty in any way. Religious is good at that specific thing, while Mil has other advantages. Between harbours, barracks and (in theory) a colosseum Mil also receives 110-shields of discount with arguably better buildings. Many people still currently question whether Cathedrals or even Temples are worth building.

Rel. civs have other benfits as well. And I am not sure harbours are military?

As to cathedrals not being worth building.. that's a rather odd argument, as the Colosseum is the least built building in the game!

[punkbass2000]

Yes, Rel has one other benefit, two-turn anarchy. This is not relevant to this discussion. And harbours are indeed military. In fact, there are several other Mil. improvements that I didn't mention as they're not too important (coastal fortress is useless, airport is good but comes late in the game, etc.)

I didn't say Cathedrals aren't worth building. I wouldn't say Colosseum is the least built building in the game, but semantics aside, I think you're presuming stock. This is part of the problem, and the confusion. I;m making several comparisons in my arguments, though I'm not sure I'm being clear enough with their distinctions. I'm good with analogies, etc., and tend to have this problem in arguments as people often don't follow (understandably). For example, my comparisons between Mil and Rel and between Mil and non-specified traits has gotten rather muddled, AFAICT. I'll try to itemize my points:

1. Colosseum, under stock rules, is, quite admittedly, on the erge of useless.
2. Militaristic, under stock rules, has no advantages over other civs in terms of either culture nor happiness.
3. Giving Militaristic half-price colosseums would seriously undermine both of the above points.
4. Giving Colosseums a tourism bonus in addition to #3 would further undermine #1 and #2.
5. It is now established, with #3, that, in many respects, Mil has gained characteristics similar to that of Rel. In fact, much like Moonbars appears unclear as to whether or not Harbours are Mil, I've seen many a newb presume that Colosseums are Rel.
6. Though still not as directly advantageous as actually having the both Mil and Rel as one's traits, a Mil civ still now has advantages which are similar enough, under #3, that to have such an advantage with a single trait may be unbalancing, as there is will be another trait to be had. Less importantly, this also reduces the value of Japan.
7. #6, in and of itself, might not be so bad if it were not for #4. Not only is one getting two content citizens for the shield investment of a Temple for non-Rel civs, one is potentially breaking even and eventually making money. This offsets the 2gpt maintenance, which isn't a bad deal in the first place, as two content citizens for 2gpt, per se, would be fine.
8. alexman's most important point, IMO, is that half-price Colosseums produce no more cpt/shield than Temples. This true.
9. However, the idea that one is not gaining any real benefit from the tourism bonus when conquering is not true, IMO. I believe the best strat for any Mil civ (up to Deity, anyway, which, IMO, is good enough) is an Archer rush. Having Colosseums in these conquered cities for the same shield cost as Temples would be unbalancing, not even counting the ones that would also be up in your core.
10. As a result of all of the above, I think the idea, as a whole, is unfair. Colosseums are weak under stock, so giving them a tourism bonus sounds like a good idea, to me. Similarly, Mil is weak under stock and giving it half-price Colosseums sounds like a good idea. Doing both, however, seems unbalancing to me. The Aztec, particularly, would become unstoppable, especially on Pangaea. Vikings would become further invincible on Arch maps.

There, how's a nice syllogism work for everyone?

[pvzh]

I want to bring to attention of everybody that we must not forget of AI and how it makes its decisions. For example, attaching tourist attraction flag on stock colloseum will do no good, because AI will not recognise a need to build several of them early just for tourist attraction and forget about this structure. AI does not build stock colleseum often (as far as I know unless temple+cathedral is not enough).

The flag could be attached only to buildings that AI is willing to build as fast as the opportunity present itself, small wonders (FP, heroic epic, others make either no sense or availabel too late), or palace (you have it regardless).

[Modo44]

I recently tried 3 games with the AU Mod, but using the debug feature. This was with the version which has a reduced cost for Colosseums, not the one with the Military flag. For some reason I can't explain, in all 3 games, many AIs would build Colosseums even before Temples. Perhaps some more testing should be done, to see how consistent that is. No, I don't have the saves anymore, but I can make some. Just give me something heavy for the Enter key.

[GodKing]

Cool little feature.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Modo44
I recently tried 3 games with the AU Mod, but using the debug feature. This was with the version which has a reduced cost for Colosseums, not the one with the Military flag. For some reason I can't explain, in all 3 games, many AIs would build Colosseums even before Temples.

The reason is probably that in happiness terms, for nonreligious civs, a colosseum is more cost-effective than a temple in those versions of the Mod. It costs only 55 shields per happy face instead of 60 shields per happy face. (Also, the AU Mod gives colosseums a lower maintenance cost per happy face than temples, although I don't know whether AIs consider that.)

[Modo44]

Yup, you are probably right.

Of course, the AI did build Temples in core cities, because Construction is not exactly a cheap tech. But, once it was there, almost all new AI cities would build Colosseums, often as the first structure.

Then, I tried it with the proposal: Colosseum back to 120 shields, but Militaristic. Non-Militaristic AI would build Temples first, Militaristic AI would go for Colosseums in new cities.

It's hard to find out, when those Colosseums become active. Loading archived games, Construction was around from 500 BC (new games, Emperor, AU Mod), to 500 AD (very old, Monarch, stock rules). It seems, that 1000 year old Colosseums should be pretty common. Depending on the game progress, they might even cross the 1500 year mark, making a civ quite rich.

This really needs playtesting, IMO. It's not explored enough, and the Debug games won't help much more.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae in the Colosseum thread
What about making the Palace a Tourist Attraction, or has that been implemented already?

That would dramatically increase the amount of commerce available early in the game. The bonus would start to kick in around 3000 BC and would max out around 1500 BC, a time when civs are generally still in Despotism and still REXing. In most cases, the capital would be getting more commerce from the palace as a tourist attraction than from the tiles it is working by that point.

I think we need to be careful that we don't fall into the trap of looking for excuses to use a feature just because it's available. It may actually be that Firaxis (or their partners) knew what they were doing when they tried to make the tourist attraction bonus available only for great wonders.